The Right to Our Own
Bodies

The History of Male Circumcision in the U.S.

by Frederick Hodges and Jerry W. Warner

[This article appeared in the
November 1995 issue of M.E.N. Magazine]

The subject of male circumcision is highly taboo in
America. Most men—and this includes doctors—would
prefer not to think about circumcision, and can become
defensive when the subject is brought up. Most American men
have never even seen an intact human penis.

Circumcision is not a benign surgery. Besides destroying a
significant segment of the male's sexual equipment, it has a
significant complication rate. According to an important
medical study, one serious complication-severe hemorrhage,
infection, loss of entire penis, or death-occurs in every 500
circumcisions (approximately 3,700 in 1993).1 According to another study, "Death as
a complication from newborn circumcision has been estimated
to occur in from 1 in 24,000 to 1 in approximately 500,000
[cases]. Some investigators have actively sought out
complications by interview and have recorded rates of
55%."2 These figures suggest
that, with 1.2 million circumcisions performed in this
country each year, at least 3 boys die each year, and for no
other reason than that they were born in the United States.
Prospective parents are not given these facts.

The U.S. is the only Western nation that surgically alters
its males in this manner. In Europe and in most of the world,
[non-religious] circumcision is unknown, and intact males do
not suffer from any of the diseases and discomforts claimed
by American proponents of circumcision. Genitally-intact
Europeans are often very amused to hear the notions
circumcised Americans have about the normal human penis.
Notions about improved hygiene after circumcision appear
ludicrous to intact men. The European medical community
condemns the U.S. for a practice they call a barbaric
violation of human rights.3
Europeans believe that males have a basic human right to an
intact penis, a right to keep the body they were born with,
and a right to body ownership and autonomy. For them it is a
question of respect and dignity.

Men's Bodies

The foreskin is one of the most erotically sensitive parts
of the penis. It represents 50% to 80% of the skin system of
the penis, depending on the length of the penile shaft. It is
a unique and highly complex organ. The average foreskin has
over three feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet
of nerve fibers, and over 1,000 nerve endings. If unfolded,
the adult foreskin would measure 20 to 30 square inches.

The foreskin plays a large role in sexual function. When
sexually aroused, its lips expand and unroll over the glans.
The glans stimulates the foreskin, and the foreskin
stimulates the glans. The foreskin functions much like the
eyelid. The inside of the foreskin and the glans of the
normal penis are glistening and red, just like the inside of
the mouth. The foreskin has glands that produce a natural
moisturizer and lubricant called smegma. Smegma serves the
same purpose as tears do in the eye: it keeps everything
moist, clean, and lubricated.

Men's History

In the U.S. there is a myth that the natural human penis
is a self-destructing time-bomb, ready to go off at any time
in an explosion of disease, filth, and horrible stenches, an
inevitable disaster which only immediate surgery at birth can
prevent. Can this be true? Why and how did this practice of
routine infant circumcision begin in the United States?

Non-religious circumcision was introduced into this
country on a very small scale in the 1860s for a single
purpose-to stop masturbation. Circumcision was used as a
deliberate surgical intervention to debilitate and
desensitize the penis.

During the Victorian era, physicians began to believe that
all sexual activity was dangerous to physical and emotional
health. Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of
sexuality and was named as the cause of every known disease,
from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease,
tuberculosis, and death. With every credible American doctor
and medical association issuing dire warnings about
masturbation, any step taken towards its eradication and
prevention was deemed justified.

In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the
habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will
cause too much local suffering to allow the practice being
continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may
circumcise the male patient with present and probably with
future advantages; the operation, too, should not be
performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced
may be associated with the habit we wish to
eradicate.4

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always
successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation
should be performed by a surgeon without administering an
anaesthetic as the pain attending the operation will have a
salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be
connected with the idea of punishment.5

Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vice practiced
among boys. I performed … circumcision. He needed
the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit
pleasures.6

By the turn of the century, circumcision had become a
panacea. Amputation of the foreskin was "scientifically
proven" to cure and prevent diseases ranging from insanity to
epilepsy, malnutrition, hip-joint disease, paralysis, eczema,
tuberculosis, headache, hysteria, alcoholism, criminality,
and heart disease.

In 1928, the American Medical Association published an
editorial in its journal calling for the routine circumcision
of all male infants at birth. The primary justification for
routine circumcision was the prevention of
masturbation.7

I suggest all male children be circumcised. I am
convinced that masturbation is much less common in the
circumcised.8

During World Wars I and II, many soldiers were forcibly
circumcised by military doctors under threat of court
martial. Returning WWII veterans were now conditioned to
believe that circumcision was the correct thing to do. They
were told it was hygienic, that it prevented disease, and
that conformity was necessary. Young parents did not object
when their newborn boys were automatically circumcised after
being delivered in hospitals, though in reality they had no
choice. Hospitals did not require anyone's consent to perform
this surgery.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, this abusive situation
was reformed. Hospitals and doctors were required to obtain
informed consent from patients for any medical or surgical
procedure. Circumcision now required consent before a doctor
was legally allowed to amputate, but since a baby is unable
to give his consent, parents were assumed to have the power
to give consent on behalf of the baby.

By the early 1970s, over 90% of newborn boys were
automatically circumcised. In 1971, the American Academy of
Pediatrics reviewed the medical literature on circumcision
and determined that circumcision, after all, was not
medically valid. The circumcision rate began to fall
dramatically. New medical excuses continue to be invented for
the surgery, but all have been disproved by European
studies.

Men's Awakening

In the 1980s, an awakening began in the psyches of
American men. Many began to realize that they had been
alienated from their bodies. Many began to question the myths
which told them that their genitals were inherently "dirty"
and in need of surgical reduction. Today, American men in
increasing numbers are becoming aware that they had a right
to all of their reproductive organs and that no one had the
right to remove part of their body. Men are now demanding the
right to control their own sexual organs.

Marilyn Fayre Milos, a registered California nurse,
founded the National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. NOCIRC is now the nation's
leading human rights organization for body ownership rights.
The National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine
Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) was founded by Tim Hammond in
1992 in San Francisco, and has awakened millions of men to
this men's movement issue. One recent NOHARMM survey of
hundreds of victims of circumcision proves the lifelong
negative consequences of this sexual alteration.

Founded respectively by Wayne Griffiths and Dr. James
Bigelow, the National Organization for Restoring Men (NORM)
and the UNCircumcising Information and Resources Center
(UNCIRC) have given hope to thousands of American victims of
circumcision wishing to restore their foreskin. Dr. Bigelow's
revolutionary book, The Joy of Uncircumcising!, shows
men how they can gently stretch their remaining penile shaft
skin to cover their glans. Restoration cannot give back the
erotogenic nerves amputated at birth, but can create a more
natural-looking penis. The restored foreskin functions as the
original might have; it enables the glans to heal, soften,
and return to a much higher and normal level of sensitivity.
Restoration has been very therapeutic for men. It improves
body image, improves self-esteem, dispels feelings of
victimization, and empowers men to make choices about their
own sexuality.

Men's Destiny

American men are beginning to realize the truth that
nature knows more about designing the penis than do American
doctors. Parents do not have the right to force circumcision
on their sons. The only person who has the right to consent
to the amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part
is the person who must live with the consequences. Many
circumcised American males unnecessarily feel uneasy and
threatened by the men's pro-choice movement. The movement
against infant circumcision is no threat to circumcised men.
The men's pro-choice movement is fighting for the freedom of
American males to keep the sexual organs nature intended them
to have. Parents have nothing to lose and everything to gain
by leaving their sons intact. Permitting their offspring the
dignity of an intact body and protecting the basic human
right to self-autonomy is both good and noble. Everyone has
the right to an intact body.

In the spirit of brotherhood, American men are now
empowering themselves to fight the taboos which for decades
have prevented them from speaking out against the violation
of their basic human right to control their own reproductive
organs. The men's pro-choice movement empowers men to fight
to protect the rights of future generations. By saying "no"
to circumcision, American men are saying "yes" to men's
rights. We are wrenching the stainless-steel scalpels from
the hands of the circumcisers and beating them into silver
spoons for our sons. History will forever thank us if we act
now.

Jerry W. Warner holds a B.S. degree in business
administration, is a registered securities broker and
insurance agent. He represents NOCIRC and NOHARMM in
Louisiana and presents seminars on the issue of routine
infant circumcision.

Frederick Hodges is a medical historian and author. He
is a recognized authority and consultant on issues of
anatomy, human rights, and medical ethics.